Jim Sower

Ever wonder why all the designers are so damn puny and scrawny? Don't you just HATE that sh*t? That said, let's not get all crazy and stampede into some hideous fuselage expansion project. Skill and deception always win out over superstition and black magic. I'm 6'3", 250#, 38-39" sitting height. I doubt anyone on this list has much more shoulders and ass than me I sat in John's box stock fuselage and discovered a couple of things: 1. No need to lengthen anything. There's plenty of leg room. Maybe (but I sereiously doubt it) move the seat bulkhead back an inch for CG considerations (more on this later). 2. If I recline against the head rest, I don't hit the canopy. My headset probably would Certainly if I had more than 1" of seat cushon under me. But I needn't since I carry much more than adequate padding with me wherever I go:) Also, canopy interference is largely due to the canopy x-section being round all the way - that is, it's moving toward my head as it rises - the only really high point is over the center console where it benefits nobody. My solution is to slightly modify the canopy frame and have Todd blow me a canopy that basically comes straight up from flush with the fuselage sides and then makes a sharper turn to cross over my head. Sort of like a Glasair. 3. To accomodate my big fat ass I mean to widen the ENTIRE fuselage by 2". That means add 2" to EVERY bulkhead, spar, etc. If I do it that way, I don't have to re-engineer the taper on the fuselage sides and nose and turtle back and deal with all those "unintended consequences". Besides the two inches of fuselage, I will do what Slade recommends and gain 2" more by eliminating [most of] the center console, and cheat another nearly an inch on each side by skinnying up the side consoles. That's 5" - 6" butt room, of which only 2" is apparent to the airstream. 4. Besides the 2" wider fuselage, I will pick up another 2" or more shoulder room on each side by bringing the canopy up from flush with the fuselage sides instead of having the plans frame curve in a couple of inches on each side before the canopy even starts. Wife unit can slouch outboard a little if that's really necessary (which I doubt). Anyway, that's a total of around 6" shoulder room for that same 2" of visible expansion of the bulkheads. I aim to compensate for all that lard by building the canard to the original specs (6" greater span - and of course add the two for the fuselage mod). Since I'm going to have a rotary, there will be no cowl cheeks (perhaps even a "recovery curvature" in the aft cowl and that should wash out any drag penalty aft. Additionally, I aim to make the Cozy equivalent of the "Long nose" mod so many EZs have. I will make the nose at least 6" longer, but instead of bringing it to a point, it will have much more gentle lateral taper and end in sort of a 6" or so wide "wedge" snout - like a shark. Should look kuel as all hell. Snarky. This configuration will produce a little lift (more fat ass compensation) and help correct for the fact that the moment arm for big fat pilots is significantly less than that for little puny guys (it's like our personal CG is further forward than their's). All together, I think I'll have a sleeker looking airplane, but if I want to call it a Cozy, Nat will probably want me to use letters much wider than they are high and perhaps add an extra "o" or "z" It's a substantial mod already. Don't make it needlessly more difficult .... Jim S.

<... I would imagine that the IFR chart management in a LEZ is pretty analagous to what we did in the TA-4J in the Navy ...> I spent a lot of time in scooters too (-Cs and -Es). My Long-EZ is NOTHING like that. In the tinker toy, I went all over the country with a High Altitude chart, an approach plate book and a knee board (the other Hi- chart and (3) approach books and one airport directory were stashed waaaay back on the console). The worst case scenario for one leg (maybe 1200 mi or so) was both Hi-charts and two approach books (one of each out of harm's way on the glare shield with my apple). Ahhhh! Them was the days :) In the EZ I need as many as 4 or 5 sectionals, a foot square x inch thick book of IFR charts (that I defy ANYONE to get from where the route leaves one page to where it enters some other page - and still fly the airplane - much less navigate and negotiate with center), a couple of airport directories, an approach plate book for every state I overfly, an E-6, etc. etc. It's hideous. I might try it if I had a BMA EFIS so I didn't need any paper at all, but side by side crew is much better better all the way around. <... Greg Richter is putting a jet engine in his Cozy ... I wonder what that sucker will do ...> One thing I would guess it WON'T do is fly from Kitty Hawk to Dayton in one leg Remember the F-104? Went like stink ... for maybe 6 or 7 minutes ...

<... Because of lack of room and lack of support by GIB?. Or are there other reasons? ...> Yes, yes, yes <... Why - most of my XC is IFR ...> Just on principle, I believe hard IFR in a SE GA airplane is a bad idea and will get me into a whole lot more trouble than it gets me out of. Even if I wanted to, I would never have enough opportunity to get the actual instrument time it takes to stay as sharp as I feel I need to be. I'm OK punching up through overcast, flying VFR on top or in and out or between layers, and shooting an approach at destination If I really need to get there ... and there are NO fronts or squall lines or ice ANYWHERE NEAR my route. Side by side has lots of panel space and allows wife unit to help with radios and maps and all and enjoy the scenery. Also has lots more storage. In an EZ you don't have the panel space and you've got the entire workload. And there's not nearly enough storage for the stuff I need for X-C of more than one leg. Rooting through all that crap trying to find an intersection or frequency or approach plate and still fly and navigate is begging for trouble. I tried it and I didn't like it AT ALL. As for performance, I don't think there's all that much difference in performance between an O-320 Long-EZ and an O-360 Cozy IV. Certainly not enough to give up all the benefits described above. If you're still considering an EZ for a lot (200-300 hrs/yr), strap your wife in the back seat of one for 4 or 5 hours before you commit to anything. But that's just me .... YMMV .... Jim S.

I can't blame Rich for feeling put upon. It happens every time. It's human nature. Speculating on causes of stuff and second guessing the principals is a VERY widespread pastime. Actually, more like a group obsession. I've been the recipient of that type of thing a few times, and I've indulged it more often than I like to admit. We all seem to have an urgent need for answers - before our own next flight or at least by sundown. We devour incomplete scraps of information from preliminary investigations, and speculate around the discrepancies in statements of the various players and witnesses to come up with something we can bump against what we would [/should] do in similar circumstances. Interpretations and speculations are, of course, ALWAYS biased against the pilot. It's monday morning quarterbacking raised to a high art. The fact that it's part of the game, and there's no offense meant, doesn't make it any easier to take. We usually take something useful away from the exercise though (or at least we damn sure should). I can't count the guys I knew who were killed (or had some of those "intense learning experiences" our daddies warned us about) doing stuff that we all did. Examining their [apparent] actions and thinking them through led me to alter some of the ways I did stuff. I know that I'm still walking around largely for having gone through that process. Even the unfounded rumors can have value if carefully examined for stuff that could bite me if I encountered it.

<... AeroComp has been marketing a 7 place kit for years and the Murphy Super Rebel is a six passenger kit plane they have been marketing for several years also ...> Agreed. I would not have said what I did on a thread around Maules and BD-4s on steroids and the like. This is the Beech Starship thread, and up until now we were talking about high speed, high altitude, complex, cross country airplanes - "cabin class" twins or better. I'll stand on my statement that that airplanes of that type do not lend themelves to homebuilding, and even if you had one, you would be very hard put to legally get proper utilization out of it. I don't have that many friends going to the same place at the same time. Big old boxy planes like those you mentioned that haul a ton or two of freight around at 120 kts are another matter altogether and, IMO, are more appropriately discussed on a thread of their own since they have so little in common with Starship, Avanti, etc. The price I pay for making general statements .... Jim S.

The 51% rule and prohibitions against "operating for hire" would preclude any homebuilts that could seat more than four people. There's no rationale or market for a homebuilt cabin class airplane. Even the single- and 2-place jets don't succeed (but that's largely because hardly anything Bede does succeeds much). I think if I won the Lotto I would go lean on Burt to certify or kit out the Boomerang. That's the only even remotely cabin class [twin] that I would be interested in, and if I had one, it would rarely fly with all the people on board that it would hold. I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to fit a cabin class airplane into the "Experimental" definition.

Well, where do we start? There are a lot of parameters that go into this. Mine are: 1. I am large - 6'3", 240#, longish torso 2. Performance is a curcial consideration with me 3. I am retired on a fixed income - which is to say that I do not have more money than I am able to spend wisely (well, maybe just a LITTLE bit ... short wisdom rather than long money ...) 4. I own a Long-EZ and a Velocity (cause for (3)) 5. With the experience I gained flying the Velocity and EZ, I am building a Cozy I "tried on" a couple of Lancairs (-320, -360) and found I didn't fit well. I wouldn't buy a -IV-P - on principle - even if I won the lottery. As to performance, I don't know that the L-320s and L-360s perform all that much Better than Long-EZ or Cozy. I found that the early Glasairs were too small as well, and the later ones unaffordable. Again, with equivalent engines, they don't seem to perform a lot better than Cozy or EZ. I bought the Long-EZ to have something to play with while I built the Cozy. I loved it. Wife hated it. Bought an (older, FG) Velocity when wife saw the gull wing doors while trying to figure out how to piss away my inheritance:) She LOVES it. I don't. My feelings, based on my experience so far: A. The EZ is fun to fly. Those with O-320 perform well. GIB is dead weight cargo (a SERIOUS negative IMO). Not suitable for IFR. B. I can make the Cozy fit me comfortably. Bigger cockpit is not difficult to do. C. Affordability has become a crucial issue for me. Cozy, on account of being plans built, is MUCH more affordable than the kit planes, particularly with auto conversion options. A $2000 engine that can be rebuilt for $600 is a GOOD thing. Cruising at over 180 kts at under 10 gph is a GOOD thing. D. Kits save 30% or 40% of time building airframe, but airframe is only about 30% or 40% of project, so overall saving is only 10% - 15%. Not cost effective IMO. E. Cozy flies a lot more like EZ. My Velocity is like driving a motor home (The ones with big engines may not be so bad). F. O-360 Cozy performs pretty much like O-320 EZ. G. Cozy/EZ can be customized. I intend to have retractable main gear (another 15 kts, etc). With kits, you can only "customize" the engine and upholstery (and engine is sometimes difficult). Lacair cowl is packed pretty tight with design engine - difficult to upgrade. Glasair has more room under cowl. Velocity you can put ANYTHING in (as has already been done). And then, of course, there are the "intangibles" ....

I was going to post it in the Cozy list ....

I was too subtle, apparently. My point was that you sounded like you were trivializing or dismissing the ONE datapoint we DO have. Rather than saying "... our single datapoint seems to indicate ..." I was trying to spin it to "... all of the credible data indicates that ...":) You know me well enough to know why I was so confident that the crack about "gospel" would get your attention:p Anyway, I'm given to believe that completely closing wheel wells (Velocity and Infinity both leave at least half the wheel uncovered in the well) will buy several knots (I've heard estimates as high as 5 or 6). As much trouble as it takes to install retracts, it seems foolish not to "finish" the job. The improved safety and range issues are not widely discussed. I think that when a few SQ2000s and Cozy retracts get flying that we'll start seeing a retract mods getting a lot more popular. We'll see .... Jim S.

Mike, <... bought his extra black box that extends the nose gear at 90 kts ...> So, you're trying to stay VFR on top, and the clouds are getting higher, and you're trying to sneak up over this one last little build up, and bleed off a little airspeed to avoid going through it, and drop down to 90 kts, and THE &^)&&^#$ NOSE GEAR COMES DOWN?? The LE gear is just like the Cozy (they're the same part). It comes at you with an elliptical cross section, the major axis being about three times the minor axis. The speed merchants fair this to a symmetrical airfoil with a thickness ratio of 4 or 5. They are careful to have it at 0 deg AoA at cruise. All of Klaus' stuff works pretty good - wheel pants, kiss spinner, boat tail lower cowl, etc. EZ firewall profile makes for LARGE cowl cheeks so guys are making money down drafting the engine from inlets forward of the cowl cheeks (somewhat more drag, but now it's cooling drag instead of parasite drag, and what used to be the cooling drag is gone - sort of). There's lots and lots of tricks. Root through the last five years of CSA newsletter and read all the go-fast articles. There's LEs making 200 kts with O-320 at RACE events. Too bad about the retracts. There's a body of thought that you end up with MORE fuel on board if you put a sump where the gear bow used to be, and put fuel in the outboard strakes, and with 15 kts better top end, well ..... All it would involve is new lower strakes and bulkheads and ..... Have fun ... Jim S.

Kevin, Here's an example of the thread I mentioned above in the Rotary list: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Hi, Ed....Do I understand correctly that only one of these cores would be > needed to cool 160 HP at 120 MPH? Thanks. Paul Conner > Hi Paul, No - sorry if I misled you. Unless the pass several weeks of studying K&W are for naught, its fairly clear that for 160HP at 120MPH you need two GM cores. The point I was trying to make is that the calculations show that for the frontal area of the GM cores that their optimum thickness for 120 MPH is closer to 3" or the core you mentioned to Marv rather than the GM cores 3.6". I have however progress to the point (I think) where I could calculate the effectiveness of other cores (like car type radiators) in providing cooling. The only problem would be I would need some parameters that are normal not available. One is the ratio of open area to frontal area of the core. Similarly the dimensions of the holes (air passages) (width and height) as well as the normal dimensions (width Height thickness). Also whether the fins are smooth, slotted (the cores fins are slotted) or corrugated. I obtained those dimension from the GM core and the calculated results appears to be close to what folks are observing. Found an old Naca paper translated from a German study written back in 1939 that is surprisingly similar to the K&W work. It does have some different stuff, a bit more on the use of cowl flaps which is interesting. Also, it shows that as the radiator heats up, it offers more air resistance and less cooling effectiveness and that the area of the cowl flap opening is important in getting good results from them. Ed Anderson

The best source I know of is Ed Anderson on the rotary list. He is an excellent engineer and does careful research. He's making more progress at understanding and quantifying what I regard as a black art than anyone else I'm familiar with. There's been a very interesting thread on cooling the entire past month, and will continue for quite a while I believe. Most of the flying rotarys seem to be RVs and the issues confronting tractor and pusher instalations are different in many ways. There are no easy answers. Join the list, spend some time in the archives and have a ball. Hope to see you there .... Jim S.

<... never seen performance figures on them, and they were installed from the beginning, so there's no comparison to make ...> So let's all just stick with "the gospel according to Nat" and stipulate that it's five kts max with a terrible weight penalty ....

Mike I agree with 4. Trying to marry some of the latest solid state technology to a 70 year old engine design is not a COMPLETE waste of time, but it's certainly not the most productive development effort you could get involved with. You're going to spend all the money and time and effort that John and everyone is going through, except at the end of the day, you still have a #$(*^#$# Continental. If you make it to TBO, the overhaul costs you $10k - $20k. John rebuilds his Mazda (after 3000 hrs) for $600. Can you say "... trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ..."? At the risk of repeating myself .... DO THE MATH .... Jim S.

But consider all the folks who ditched Cozys / EZs and got all banged up because the main mounts pitch the plane down, the nose submarines and the whole thing stops in about 18 feet. Similar problems crashing - if the nose gear doesn't hold up long enough (and it's pretty much designed not to) you end up on your back very abruptly. Ditching / crashing gear up alleviates most of that - you skip and slide along and stop much more gradually. And of course there's the extra 15 kts and increased range .... Jim S.

<... I liked the retracts ...> I'm going to put Infinity retracts on my Cozy. I believe there are several other builders doing that and they are much farther along than I am. At least that's the plan .... Jim S.

<... Any other commercial applications of this design out there? ...> I recall an Italian plane (Avanti?) about the same time and size back when Starship came out. It was a 3-surface ship - Canard (small compared to Starship) for pitch trim, T-tail (small compared to Lear, etc) for pitch control. Haven't heard of it for some time. Maybe it went the way of the Starship. I seem to recall that Starship was Beech's bet that fossil fuel prices back then would stay high and make jets unaffordable and turboprops' better fuel specs would more than compensate for what they lacked in performance. Well, oil prices came down and jets got more affordable (and fractionals got popular on account of the ability to capitalize a jet more widely and therefor more thin). Beech lost their bet, there went Starship and here we are. As best I recall .... Jim S.

One thing to remember about kits - they only save time on the AIRFRAME. So if you are able to complete your airframe in, say, 60% of the time it would take to build it from plans, you are now only about 30% or 40% done with the project and the rest of the work is the same, kit or plans built. So you save 40% of 30-40% or about 12% to 16% of the total construction time. Examine the relative costs and do a careful cost benefit study before you commit a lot of money. Like in most things ... do the math .... Jim S.

I've been putzing around with vacuum-bagging for years, and talking to lots of folks - guys who have done it extensively and invented/developed many of the techniques in use today. The almost unanimous concensus: a) it's a great thing - the only way to go - for making moulded parts; b) it's waaaaaay more trouble than it's worth for hand laid up structures like Cozy, EZ. I've tried John's "plastic-bagging" and have become a true believer. It is PARTICULARLY effective when you use a very low viscosity epoxy (like the hi-$ MGS 285) and keep it hot and flowing like water. The difference in quality and weight between plastic-bagging with low viscosity epoxy and vacuum-bagging has to be trivial and would no way justify the extra effort of vacuum-bagging. Additionally, I have found that wnen vacuum-bagging a flat surface (like a bulkhead or fuselage side), the pressure seems to cause the bag to press the glass down into the foam in some places [and not / more than] in others making a more wavy surface than would be the case with plastic-bagging. I tend to believe that foam is like that. Even the factories always bag the INSIDE of a surface and keep the outside next to the mould so that the waviness is harder to detect and much less of a problem. I'm with John S. and Dust on this one .... Jim S.

<... pretty anti-climactic after hearing about Burt's latest adventure ...> What was his latest adventure? I know he had another test on his "space probe" but am not sure what that has to do with aft CG Cozys

Yes ... but you'll be constantly f..king with the computer - like every time you change altitude or rpm. You'll need a GOOD engine monitor (I have an Insight GEM 602). Yes it would Get a really good handle on the electrical and plumbing requirements and how you're going to implement them before you commit to anything. Or get a Mazda and do it right "right out the gate" ... Jim S.

Yeah. I remember basic training in T-28s we had R-3350s IIRC with 2-stage blowers. We used 115-145 (purple) avgas. It was a neat airplane, but no longer does what we did since you can't get the gas any more. We ran 56" - 60" MAP on takeoff and 36" 2400 RPM on climb. Them was the good old days - when men were men and sheep lived in fear

My reference on turbos is a guy known as "Turbo Tom" on the Subaru list. He had a hand in Greg Richter's turbo 13B and has been in the turbo business for 20 or 30 years. If/when I turbo anything at all, I aim to work with him extensively and do pretty much everything his way. Contact him at turbotom@mindspring.com and tell him I sent you. Hope this helps .... Jim S.

This works better on auto conversions because they have reliably equal air flow to all the cylinders, which is definitely not the case with Lyc-Con engines. You would probably have to set yourself up for your most common cruise power setting (at your most common cruise altitude) and adjust the injectors for that condition. Like on my Lyc, if I set up for cruise at altitude and power setting, one cylinder is the closest to peak and my EGT monitor identifies and highlights it. When I descend (maintaining the same power setting) the "peak" cylinder is different, and if I change power settings at the cruise altitude the "peak" cylinder is different again. All because of uneven flow through the runners under different conditions. That said, you can (if you want to, and learn to) adjust Tracy's mixture "on the fly". Starting with some generic cruise setup, modify it for the conditions you find yourself in. It would probably be a lot more trouble than it's worth, but it could be done. Given the asymmetry of aircraft induction systems, leaning the hottest cylinder to peak is about as good as you can do - especially since you don't want to be LOP and as a practical matter you can't achieve uniform flow. It will vastly change your pumps (all electric) and plumbing (45 psi pressure regulated rails with return flow to tank) from lower pressure, one way certified injection set-ups. That will also require a bullet proof electrical system and, most likely, electronic ignition replacing one mag. But a net gain overall. As best I can picture it on short notice ... Jim S.

None that I know of. I put them on the canard and main wing both along the 25% chord line, 1" long wedges, in pairs about 1" apart splayed about 20 deg (total), about 7" between pairs. As I said, I got excellent results. I made them out of plastic moulding available at Home Depot for $1.74 for eight feet and stuck them on with RTV. Whole operation took the wife and I a couple of hours. On Price's advice, I moved them from 25% to 20% chord and changed from wedge shaped to rectangular. I thought it was a trivial change, but was very much surprised at how much more effective they were done his way. At some point, I aim to put a row a few inches forward of the aileron hinge line to improve roll authority at the new lower speeds I have achieved. Jim Price is in CSA and his email would be in the CSA directory. He could advise you best and maybe point you to the sites you want to browse. Hope this helps ... Jim S.